US Elections 2008

[mg1942]

USA does pay more per capita for health care...

But if you have the money and live somewhere in the west coast or east coast, you get top notch services and procedures that other westerners would love to have and die for.

[SeedFreedom]

Originally Posted by mg1942

USA does pay more per capita for health care...

But if you have the money and live somewhere in the west coast or east coast, you get top notch services and procedures that other westerners would love to have and die for.

Only because American doctors can charge an arm and a leg for their services. Doctors elsewhere make much less so all the good ones go to America. If they got payment from the government, then their prices wont vary much. Then the talent pool will spread out and you wont see the focking you have before.

[Orchunter226]

Originally Posted by SeedFreedom

Only because American doctors can charge an arm and a leg for their services.

And that's how capitalism works, thank you.


Anyone else laugh when McCain's group calls out Obama on "flip-flopping?" I mean, he does. But, McCain is the almighty KING of it.

This cracks me up. It also makes me wonder if intelligence (and Charisma), not experience, plays the biggest role in a good president. Probably, but don't tell any of my fellow Americans that.

[Kyuusai]

Originally Posted by srb

You can also reform it.

Good luck with that. Part of the argument against completely government-managed healthcare is that is very, very hard to change. Really, what are the odds that competent visionaries get voted or placed in the positions to take care of these things?

Originally Posted by srb

A private corporate machine is not subject to the whims of people unless there is a strong state and strong laws in place.

The American model has failed. It is no longer adequate to protect the lives and liberties of American citizens.

The failure in the US is the laws and regulations that gave the handed the "keys to the kingdom" over to the crooks. On the commercial level, competition was eradicated (yes, private corporations can be, indirectly, subject to the whims of people, so long as some one else can do it better, and are just as subject to law as any one else). The non-profit and government-provided healthcare solutions buckle under the added weight that brings. It keeps getting worse, in a cyclical fashion.

Flawed as it may have been, the American model didn't fail. It was snatched away.

Originally Posted by srb

Healthcare is a fundamental right.

Ridculous.

The government has every responsibility to see to it that citizens have healthcare available to them. I believe that. It is a duty of leadership and governance. No one should ever be discriminated against to be denied healthcare.

But no service is ever a right.

Originally Posted by srb

The US already pays more per capita for healthcare than any other Western nation, yet one sixth of all Americans lack any sort of health insurance and for many that do have it, it lacks coverage.

Why are so many US politicians concerned with the sanctity of human life on one side (abortion), but so unconcerned with the sanctity of human life on the other (universal healthcare)?

I agree that there is a seeming dichotomy there, but seeming to equate the extinguishing of life with issues that more commonly involve the quality of life is disingenuous.

Originally Posted by SeedFreedom

Only because American doctors can charge an arm and a leg for their services. Doctors elsewhere make much less so all the good ones go to America. If they got payment from the government, then their prices wont vary much. Then the talent pool will spread out and you wont see the focking you have before.

"Can charge"? Doctors do tend to get good salaries, but there is a lot more behind that than you are aware. There are very real costs involved, and a doctor's final take-home pay is but a portion--frequently a small one. If they're paid from the government and things like insurance costs are tossed out, costs would even out... But do you really think the government would stand for being made responsible to the citizenry in any financial capacity? Hint: You won't be electing the healthcare administration. Most recourse in cases of abuse or malpractice will be gone, although doctors could be made more personally responsible.

Either way, you wouldn't see the talent pool spread out so much as dry up. See also: Canada.


Healthcare in the US is imploding. But it is imploding in every other country that are suggested as alternative models. If all people do is gripe and call for change without examining either the details or reality itself, they won't like the change they get.

[mg1942]

There's a saying

"You get what you pay for."

And US health care is true to those words.

[SeedFreedom]

Originally Posted by Kyuusai

"Can charge"? Doctors do tend to get good salaries, but there is a lot more behind that than you are aware. There are very real costs involved, and a doctor's final take-home pay is but a portion--frequently a small one. If they're paid from the government and things like insurance costs are tossed out, costs would even out... But do you really think the government would stand for being made responsible to the citizenry in any financial capacity? Hint: You won't be electing the healthcare administration. Most recourse in cases of abuse or malpractice will be gone, although doctors could be made more personally responsible.

Either way, you wouldn't see the talent pool spread out so much as dry up. See also: Canada.


Healthcare in the US is imploding. But it is imploding in every other country that are suggested as alternative models. If all people do is gripe and call for change without examining either the details or reality itself, they won't like the change they get.

Dont get me wrong, i'm not trying to say that doctors are being paid too much. They go through a lot of schooling to get what they earn. What i am saying is doctors from all over the world come to the US (like the doctors from Canada). That's only because The US is the last developed country to not provide health care. When doctors can no longer move to a different country for more money, there will be more qualified doctors available for everyone. Doctors here in Canada arent paid poorly, it just doesnt compared to what they can charge in the US. So unless they want to do to a developing country where the people cant even afford cheap doctors, they'll have to settle with what every other country can pay them.

[Vexx]

Got too many doctor friends .... you're just looking at their gross profit. Most doctors are being eaten alive by... (wait for it) insurance costs. Liability insurance to protect from lawsuits (for every justified one there's several ridiculous ones) can eat up over 50% of income. That's driving specialties like obstetrics (baby doctors) out of the business by the cartload.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

No, I'm not a friend of big businesses, and what I said has nothing to do with being rich or poor. It has to do with being able to choose. Getting rid of the private health insurance companies would not do any good, either. In the same manner, even though I can afford a private retirement fund, I choose to participate of the general government-run fund. Of course, in an ideal society, private health insurance companies would not be necessary, and thus would not exist.

The right of life has to be guaranteed by your government. If you choose to resign it in favor of some megacorporation, it's your choice. I believe you're making the assumption that, because it's the government, it automatically becomes bad quality healthcare, which is not necessarily true (and not true most of times in developed countries, and also not-so-developed like Cuba, and in some cases, my own).

The assumption I'm making is that the healthy put more money into healthcare than they take, compensating for the sick, who take more money than they put. If people have a choice, private insurances will place a greater bar for the entry into their systems, keeping for themselves the profitable customers: those who have a job and no history of medical trouble. They'll get rid of the rest either with prohibitive prices or out and out refusing to service them. The government will be stuck with those rejects, and how will it pay for them?

[WanderingKnight]

Ridculous.

The government has every responsibility to see to it that citizens have healthcare available to them. I believe that. It is a duty of leadership and governance. No one should ever be discriminated against to be denied healthcare.

But privatized healthcare is a discrimination: If a person doesn't have the money to pay for medical healthcare, the healthcare corporations will kindly reject him or her. It's a discrimination based on material possessions.

The government will be stuck with those rejects, and how will it pay for them?

Ever heard of this novel concept called "taxes"? I hear that's how you support the varied number of public services a government offers to its people. I also hear every citizen, regardless of wealth, must pay taxes. I also hear that, on a general level, (though depending which tax are we talking about) rich people pay more taxes than poor people, though most of times it represents more to poor people than to rich people--and thus rich people have more money on their hands to pay for any kind of extra healthcare they want.

[Autumn Demon]

Breakdown of potential vice-presidents for both McCain and Obama:
http://www.npr.org/news/graphics/200...eepstakes.html

[Xellos-_^]

Clinton/McCain/Obama dream ticket

http://www.theonion.com/content/news...in_join_forces

[Kyuusai]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

But privatized healthcare is a discrimination: If a person doesn't have the money to pay for medical healthcare, the healthcare corporations will kindly reject him or her. It's a discrimination based on material possessions.

Offering services and materials in exchange for pay is not discrimination. I must pay for my food, my shelter, my clothing, and my transportation as well.

But a private system does not necessarily exclude social services for those unable to afford to pay for their own healthcare. The poor actually do get healthcare in the US. The problem is the coverage for those who aren't poor enough, or who have "non-covered" conditions. This is a problem with regulation--and much of the regulatory problems are rather recent.

Issues of minimum standards of care and what conditions are covered are an issue, but they're an issue with every system. In a solely government controlled system, though, they are far less flexible.

[WanderingKnight]

Issues of minimum standards of care and what conditions are covered are an issue, but they're an issue with every system. In a solely government controlled system, though, they are far less flexible.

Just to clear up something: I don't advocate a solely-government controlled system, at least not in the current conditions. Ideally, that should be something to strive for, but people should be allowed the freedom to choose whether they want corporations to put a price on their lives or not, if they think that's the most convenient thing to do.

On the other hand, it's exactly the problem of the gray zones between the poor and the "not poor enough" the one that arises with a private-only healthcare system. You cannot ever hope to get rid of it--the existence of poor people is presupposed by a system based on scarcity, and of course, there will always exist gray zones. Where would you draw the line, then? The fact that it took around a century to realize the problems of this approach has more to do with the cyclic nature of capitalism than with human error (as you seem to imply).

The only way of eliminating the problem with gray zones is by guaranteeing the right of healthcare to the whole of the population.

[Neki Ecko]

Originally Posted by Autumn Demon

Breakdown of potential vice-presidents for both McCain and Obama:
http://www.npr.org/news/graphics/200...eepstakes.html

CNN also has a breakdown of potential vice-presidents as well. But MSNBC say that selection for both McCain and Obama is coming up in the next few days. I know that McCain would get Rommey and for Obama, I dont even know anymore.

[Reckoner]

If people who are coming in and looking at this thread want to understand the U.S. health care situation and understand how desperate people are for coverage, they should watch this video I'm posting. There are just so many people in this country without proper health care insurance.

On the topic of health care, ideally I would want a government controlled health care system. However, the government proves time and time again that they cannot use the money they get properly. At this very moment though we are in need of an overhaul in some way or another. Our current system does not work.

[kissthestick]

Wonder how white supremecists will feel if obama wins

[mg1942]

Originally Posted by kissthestick

Wonder how white supremecists will feel if obama wins

He'll take away their guns

He'll start chipping away the 2nd Amendment so he won't be threatened

[Solace]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Got too many doctor friends .... you're just looking at their gross profit. Most doctors are being eaten alive by... (wait for it) insurance costs. Liability insurance to protect from lawsuits (for every justified one there's several ridiculous ones) can eat up over 50% of income. That's driving specialties like obstetrics (baby doctors) out of the business by the cartload.

Nail on the head right here. Medical costs are through the roof because of outside expenses. Insurance is a major portion of that, but it also costs substantial amounts of money for the care hospitals provide. The machines, the tests, the stays, the staff, the clerical work, the cost of operating the whole system, it all adds up fast and the costs have to be pushed somewhere. In a capitalist society, that means private sources of income (your wallet, investors wallets and private insurance (not including Medicare/Medicaid).

Social care isn't the better solution but I think many agree *something* needs to be done. The problem is that no matter the system of payment, health care in general is swamped. There's never enough qualified practitioners to meed the demands of the people who need health care, and this isn't even including people who don't get medical care because they can't afford it or are scared of the costs.

On one hand, regular check ups can help prevent more serious issues down the road. It's easier to remove a small tumor than a full blown case of cancer, as an example. But the burden of billions of people who need that kind of care means that at some point you aren't a patient, you're just a case number. That kind of "impersonal" care can open up even bigger problems of corruption and public health issues.

Medical science has improved a lot but it's also presented new problems. With people living longer, the system is stretched even more dealing with "new" issues that weren't as prevalent before. This is especially noticeable in aging populations like Japan and the boomer generation in the US. Combine that with social programs that aren't getting the reforms they need and it's a recipe for major problems. And people think an entire system run socially is a good idea? The government can't even handle what's in place now.

For the record, hospitals (at least in the US) will treat you in an emergency regardless of ability to pay. But if you live the bill will probably kill you anyway.

[kissthestick]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Z8-44ygRw8

Facepalm @ Sean Hannity

[Xellos-_^]

it probably won't happen but if it came up with a tied in convention i would be laughing so hard.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...nomination/?hp

Clinton's name will be in Nomination.